There should be handcuffs.

[Atticus]

Another morning has begun with a media review of all the Republicans who will be saying "Fuck you!" to the House, the Democratic party and several centuries of legal precedent.

"Subpoena" means---literally---"under penalty". If a subpoena is not quashed but is simply defied, there is supposed to be a penalty. A common way for a court to enforce their subpoena is to issue a "Rule to Show Cause". The person is given a short date and time at which he or she is to appear in court and explain why he or she should not be held in contempt of court. If no good cause is shown, the person may be found in contempt and fined or even held in custody until they comply with the subpoena.

If the person fails to appear when ordered, a warrant for their arrest is usually issued.

Those who fail to appear in response to the House subpoenas and those who refuse to answer questions even after appearing should be arrested---as publicly as possible.

People have begun to question whether our party has the strength to lead. Their concern is that if twerps like Lewandowski can flip us off in public and walk away smirking, how can we be expected to deal with true monsters like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un--- and Trump.

We ignore this concern at our peril.

[Nictuku]

1. Who enforces the defied subpoena? The DOJ

Who is in charge of the DOJ? William Barr.

I wouldn't put all the blame on the Dems. They are between a rock and a hard place.

[Atticus]

4. The DOJ is one of three possible "enforcers". The courts can also be used and this slow methodical

remedy is, so far, the one chosen by the House. But, the House also has the INHERENT authority to enforce their subpoenas. I understand it has not been used for over a century, but I'm saying it is time to dust it off

I believe there is a actually a basement room in the Capitol for holding arrestees.

If Lewandowski claims some fictional privilege today, he should not go home.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. The Judicial System

from Roberts especially, who proclaimed we do not have Trump, Bush, Obama, Clinton judges, has to at some point cast a wary eye on the inability to enforce subpoenas. This one of the very foundations of enforcing discovery and the law. If it is allowed to be ignored by the highest powers, then it is only a matter of time before people go to court and refuse to supplicate, proclaiming their own inherent executive privilege.

"If Trump can do it, why not me?" The courts wouldn't allow it of course, but the point would be publicly made, and Trump administration credibility would erode further, perhaps even in the minds of some Republicans.

Sure to be a bestseller alt-right book - "How to ignore subpoenas, Trump Style"

[NewJeffCT]

7. Inherent Contempt was last used in the 1930s, I believe

but, was used somewhat regularly before that. Since that time, it's always gone to DOJ

[triron]

18. Probably because most of the time the DOJ has acted. Now the DOJ flips off the House.

[NewJeffCT]

19. Sadly

the Trump/Barr DOJ will cite Holder and Lerner as precedents under Obama for DOJ not enforcing subpoenas.

[rainy]

30. I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't it be all hell breaking loose if Nadler just had

Lewandowski arrested! Of course the media would talk on and on over how the Democrats have overreached, are hurting their campaigns etc etc. Have to protect the big advertisers and donors for the Republicans.

But, we who are the many, would be dancing in the streets, they are the few!!! We have reached the critical mass and their days are numbered!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. There may be intermediate steps

US Marshalls, Capitol Police, court orders ... Barr would have to fly in the face of that plus public opinion plus the House Judiciary Committee. Not to say he won't do it, but it's not a simple once and done.

[ewagner]

15. Hmmmmm....

"... Barr would have to fly in the face of that plus public opinion, plus the House Judiciary Committee."

Maybe that's just what we need....maybe we have to force them to openly, brazenly defy the law...would that create enough of a public outrage to impeach the bastards?

[kacekwl]

22. EXACTLY !!

Make him show his unlawful actions in person and explain why the DOJ is not enforcing the law.

[shanti]

36. It's exactly what we need

They are like little kids who keep trying to cross the line. Barr is laughing in our faces.

[lastlib]

43. Aren't the US Marshals under the DOJ?

If so, wouldn't Barr be able to rein them in as well?

[ewagner]

51. Yes....but....

then the U.S. Marshals would have to make some decisions...

they could refuse to be "reined in "....they could resign rather than follow his orders...they could have a bad case of "blue flu"...

That would create a crisis where America would finally be forced to choose between the rule of law and dictatorship.

[Catch2.2]

47. Exactly X2!!!

This needs to be done!

[lunatica]

40. Perhaps Barr's defiance would precipitate an immediate impeachment process

If the Democrats take on the obvious defiance of people that blatantly ignore subpoenas they would win our respect, which is really teetering on its last leg right now. Win or lose they would be fighting the righteous battle. You can’t always wait for a sure win in order to fight for a vitally important thing.

[ewagner]

52. ABSOLUTELY!!!! N/T

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. Jurney v. MacCracken

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/

1. The power of a House of Congress to punish a private citizen who obstructs the performance of its legislative duties is not limited to the removal of an existing obstruction, but continues after the obstruction has ceased or its removal has become impossible.

[ ... ]

[bucolic_frolic]

41. Wow that's a broad clause, could mean financial restitution to taxpayers

Somewhere there was a figure attached to the cost of an hour of a Congressional committee hearing hour. You know, the cost of all the factors - room, utilities, personnel, elected official time, staff ... it was enormous. Taxpayers pay for this. Delay costs money.

[Kid Berwyn]

2. Time to defund the Executive.

Power of the Purse and all that.

Way past time, IMFO.

[2naSalit]

8. Way over due...nt

[erronis]

9. That's exactly the game plan - for putin and plutocrats.

Dissolution of the USA.

[yaesu]

16. we need to do this and more, we should not be working with the fascists on anything

even if it means shutting the government and military down until we get cooperation with the investigation. There will be pain but by doing nothing we are setting ourselves up for much more pain down the road.

[Catch2.2]

48. Agree 100%

The time to act is now!

[ehrnst]

26. How does that work? By what mechanism does Congress alone "defund the executive?"

I think that you give congress more power than they have, and that leads to false expectations and blaming them for doing something that they can't do.

There are things that Congress can do, and they are listed here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45442.pdf

[FBaggins]

33. They can't

Many posters dramatically misunderstand the so-called "power of the purse".

Yes... Congress controls the appropriations process - but that doesn't mean that if you tick off some Senator, she can pull your funding and effectively fire you.

It is Congress as a whole that appropriates. If someone wanted to defund the executive branch (a misnomer... because almost everything that gets funded is part of the executive branch - so let's just say the office of the White House - they would have to pass a new budget for next fiscal year with no such funding in it. Then the Senate would have to pass the same budget (see where I'm going here?)... and then the President would have to sign it.

Even if such a move were constitutional (likely not), the chances of it happening are pretty darn close to zero.

Refuse to fund some new weapon system in a budget that is otherwise unobjectionable? Sure... it's gone. They won't shut down the government or sue for that. Defund the presidency? Yeah... not gonna happen.

[Mr.Bill]

38. Cut the funding for Air Force 1 out of the budget.

That would be a good first step.

[FBaggins]

39. And how do you get the Senate and President to agree to the cut?

Again... never gonna happen.

[Mr.Bill]

42. Of course it's not going to happen.

Would be fun, though.

[world wide wally]

3. When we completely lose the rule law... We have lost America.

You cannot play a game without rules.
Impossible

[joshdawg]

10. Why play by the rules?

republicans haven't played by the rules for decades. If they can......and still...get away with breaking all the rules, why can't the Democrats?
just askin'

excuse the syntax.

[malthaussen]

32. That may be one of those questions...

... where if you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer. It usually involves some variant of the "just because everybody else jumps off a cliff, would you do so too?" argument.

The conviction seems to be that breaking the rules "works," and if it works, why should our side not have it in our tool box? One answer may be a line from Lois McMaster Bujold: the only thing you can't give up for your heart's desire is your heart.

Or, we may ask, should one allow his own conduct to be determined by that of others? Plenty would say "you betcha," others might argue that they choose their own path. Even if it might be inexpedient.

Perhaps it comes down to individual honor. Why be honorable? Especially in the face of depravity? Why refrain from littering, if everybody else does it?

Ah, but then there is the question of scale. One may, privately, submit to all sorts of inconvenience to maintain his own standards, but what if that decision effects others? Have I the right to insist that everyone else observe my own idiosyncratic code of honor? Seems to me, though, that that is an argument that should only work if one can show a direct linkage between maintaining a given standard and the destruction of the Republic. Hard to do, and when one attempts to do so, he seems not far from saying "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Then there are those who see some kind of logical fallacy in the argument "Our values and priciples are under attack, therefore the best thing we can do to defend them is give them up."

And there was nothing wrong with your syntax. Just sayin'.

-- Mal

[Scarsdale]

11. Well, so much for

"Nobody is above the law" Apparently, any tRump butt kisser IS. Time to test out just how independent the Supreme Court is. Are they "supreme" or are they toadies for tRump?

[ehrnst]

25. So if congress doesn't make a referral to the DOJ

that is run by Barr, who makes the decision to carry it out, then we have "completely lost the rule of law."

Eric Holder defied a congressional subpoena, there was no warrant issued for his arrest, and rule of law was not affected, let alone lost.

I think that we give often more weight to what would make us feel vindicated that what actually does have weight, and that lack of understanding makes us think that Congress isn't doing their job, because we aren't getting what we believe we deserve - to see people in cuffs. Frankly it's a quicker and more likely scenario to hit them in the wallet:

Democrats believe they can also use their inherent contempt power to impose a fine rather than pursue jail time, though they were careful to leave both options on the table.

Neither chamber has ever imposed a monetary penalty through inherent contempt, CRS said, while citing court decisions that would support the use of such action.

In modern times, Congress has moved away from inherent contempt and used other mechanisms to try to enforce subpoenas.

One option is civil enforcement. Either chamber of Congress can file suit in federal district court seeking an order to enforce compliance with the subpoena. But Democrats are wary of pursuing legal action, knowing that it could take months or years to reach a resolution.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/fines-jail-time-democrats-leave-options-table-enforcing-subpoenas

[Bayard]

12. Lock them UP!

That's what happens to your regular citizen. This above-the-law shit has got to stop. It makes the House look weak to not enforce the law. This is one thing they CAN control.

[Bonx]

31. We need to start arresting and incarcerating!

[leftieNanner]

13. Did lewandowski defy the subpoena today?

Nt

[FBaggins]

35. Scheduled to start at 1pm eastern nt

[yaesu]

17. and while the fascists get away with crippling our party we continue to work with them on

legislation that makes tRump look good like the 300 billion stimulus and budgets.

[ehrnst]

20. Who would carry that out? The DOJ. Do you think that would happen quickly?

Remember, Eric Holder was not handcuffed, nor was a warrant issued for his arrest when he defied a congressional subpoena.

I'm in no way promoting that people defy congressional subpoenas, but they are seldom issued arrest warants.

The other option used in modern times is an 1857 criminal contempt statute that makes failure to comply with a congressional subpoena for testimony or documents a misdemeanor punishable by a substantial fine or up to a year in prison. But if Congress pursues criminal contempt via a vote of the House, the result is only a referral to the Department of Justice, which would have the final say on whether to prosecute.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/fines-jail-time-democrats-leave-options-table-enforcing-subpoenas

[kacekwl]

23. I don't care about Holder or anyone else.

That was then this is now . Enforce the laws damn it. This is getting so old already. That's what happens when you let criminals like Bush / Cheney / Rice etc. Kill thousands and the go home put their feet up and relax with a drink every day.

[ehrnst]

29. Fines are quicker, and we know that under Barr, criminal charges will be dropped.

Fines are quicker, though less satisfying than demanding a perp walk, which wouldn't happen for years.

Again - do we want compliance now, via hitting them in their wallet, or demand that instead Congress wastes time on a criminal charges that go nowhere? What is the goal here? Futile gestures that actually have the result of letting them get away scott free?

In modern times, Congress has moved away from inherent contempt and used other mechanisms to try to enforce subpoenas.

One option is civil enforcement. Either chamber of Congress can file suit in federal district court seeking an order to enforce compliance with the subpoena. But Democrats are wary of pursuing legal action, knowing that it could take months or years to reach a resolution.

“If you’re worried about timeline and they’re running a clock, you’ve got to short-circuit the process. And waiting two or three years for a court to rule in your favor is not going to cut it,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, who chairs the Oversight and Reform Government Operations Subcommittee.

The other option used in modern times is an 1857 criminal contempt statute that makes failure to comply with a congressional subpoena for testimony or documents a misdemeanor punishable by a substantial fine or up to a year in prison. But if Congress pursues criminal contempt via a vote of the House, the result is only a referral to the Department of Justice, which would have the final say on whether to prosecute.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/fines-jail-time-democrats-leave-options-table-enforcing-subpoenas

[matt819]

21. Agreed

Every single one of them, from the Acting DNI on down.

Every. Single. One.

[brutus smith]

24. This is what the Dems should do

Lock up those refusing to testify and let it play out in the courts. They will remain in jail until there is decision by the courts.

[elleng]

27. Yes, We ignore this concern at our peril.

[ehrnst]

28. False dillema. There is a middle ground between "ignoring" and issuing a warant for an arrest.

In fact criminal referrals can only be made to the DOJ - and do you think that they'll do anything?

Fines are quicker, though less satisfying than demanding a perp walk, which wouldn't happen for years.

In modern times, Congress has moved away from inherent contempt and used other mechanisms to try to enforce subpoenas.

One option is civil enforcement. Either chamber of Congress can file suit in federal district court seeking an order to enforce compliance with the subpoena. But Democrats are wary of pursuing legal action, knowing that it could take months or years to reach a resolution.

“If you’re worried about timeline and they’re running a clock, you’ve got to short-circuit the process. And waiting two or three years for a court to rule in your favor is not going to cut it,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, who chairs the Oversight and Reform Government Operations Subcommittee.

The other option used in modern times is an 1857 criminal contempt statute that makes failure to comply with a congressional subpoena for testimony or documents a misdemeanor punishable by a substantial fine or up to a year in prison. But if Congress pursues criminal contempt via a vote of the House, the result is only a referral to the Department of Justice, which would have the final say on whether to prosecute.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/fines-jail-time-democrats-leave-options-table-enforcing-subpoenas

[shanti]

34. Throw him in jail!

and don't let him out until he squeals. There has to be an example made.

[FBaggins]

37. Two aspects missing from this analysis

If a subpoena is not quashed

This is actually a key aspect of the differences. A normal subpoena can be quashed by appealing to a judge that it was inappropriate in a given scenario. Congressional subpoenas have no appeal process. Instead... if you feel they are inappropriate, you ignore them and Congress asks the court to enforce it.

The second difference is that these are two co-equal branches of government. If one wants to force the other one to do something that they don't want to do... there's going to be conflict (usually involving the third co-equal branch). This is in no sense unique to a Trump administration and a Democratic House.

[MadDAsHell]

44. How many politicians can you name that have faced an actual legal penalty for lying?

Let's be real: ethics aside (and most politicians care FAR more about their own careers and livelihood than anything as silly as ethics), why WOULDN'T you lie if there's a 99.99% chance there is no penalty?

And that's what history tells us: as a politician, whether during campaigns or under oath, there is a 99.99% chance your lies have no consequences for you whatsoever.

Plus, there isn't much a leg to stand on with Lois Lerner and Eric Holder defying subpoenas just a few years ago, similarly with no consquences.

[GulfCoast66]

45. Lock him up? I know we are all frustrated. But lock him up? Who and where?

The dungeon in the basement of the house? Held by Nader and the House Sargent at Arms?

And using a sketchy power that has not been used more than a few times in our history. The last time like 100 years ago?

Take him to a federal detention facility? The ones run by the DOJ? Laughable.

And we would quickly lose in the courts and look not only stupid. More harmful is we would be seen acting outside of the Norms of the American political tradition. And yeah, I know the republicans are doing just that. And that is a big part of our appeal to independents.

The last thing you want to do when showing the other party is acting outside of the norms, which we are doing, is to then do the exact same thing.

Like impeachment, some kind of kangaroo court ‘arrest’ would do way more harm to our success in 2020 than just proceeding as we are. And all those screaming for arrest would be a bursting a blood vessels when it comes to naught and the person walks out free a right wing martyr.

[Mr. Ected]

46. Is Democratic leadership hesitant to act because they fear reprisal if the tables should turn?

Are they afraid to punish, to wield their subpoena power to incarcerate those in contempt of court, because they fear the calls to "Lock Her Up" may become reality for many Democrats if these insane lunatics in the Republican Party be given the opportunity for revenge?

[NCLefty]

49. Eric Holder defied GOP subpoena

And sure, it was different and they were just playing politics, but we can't clutch our pearls and pretend we've never defied subpoenas.

It all seems so broken. We could get our dream president but if we don't also take the senate, good luck getting anything done to progress the country or move past Trumpism.

[kyburbonkid]

50. According to the Rethugs there is a Deep State

Hummm.. Maybe we should activate it to make arrests.